The Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port And Terminal Private Ltd (formerly known as Fourcee Port and Terminal Private Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, [2018] All ER (D) 101 (Jul) on 13 July 2018 provided important clarification as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") out of the jurisdiction.

The Facts

An update on the changes to CVA's brought about by the introduction of the New Rules.

1. CONSOLIDATION OF THE RULES

1.1. The New Rules applicable to CVA's are found at rules 2.1 to 2.45 of the New Rules, (formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to:

The Facts

Following a bankruptcy petition on 23 January 2007, Mr Eaitisham Ahmed had entered an IVA which was approved as a result of votes of family members who claimed to be creditors. The IVA was challenged and a bankruptcy order was made on 21 April 2009. David Ingram and Michaela Hall were appointed as Joint Trustees on 14 April 2010, following a trustee in bankruptcy initially appointed on or around the time of the bankruptcy order.

Changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Act")

SBEEA 2015 makes a host of supplemental amendments to the Act, the general effect of which is remove references to creditors' meetings and replace them with the alternative decision processes.

As a consequence:

The Facts

The case concerned an application made by the Liquidators of a BVI incorporated company, Peak Hotels and Resorts Limited ("Peak"). The application was intended to determine the effectiveness of a charge granted by Peak to Candey Limited, Peak's former solicitor.

Peak was the holding company of a joint venture vehicle that became the subject of lengthy international litigation proceedings following the breakdown of relations between the joint venture partners and shareholders. Candey acted for peak in the litigation.

(1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL v (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICHOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN (5) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY : (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN v (1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL (3) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY sub noms (1) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (KNOWLE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (2) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (ELLESMERE PORT) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (3) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (BELLE VALE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2017] EWHC 25 (Ch)

The Facts

Mr Reynard, a bankrupt, made an claim against his Trustee, Mr Fox. Mr Reynard acted in person at all times and issued proceedings at the county court money claims centre for breach of contract and negligence, asserting that his Trustee had failed to assess potential claims properly and had incorrectly valued the claims, and therefore had failed to take action.

English High Court places US company into Administration

On 7 October 2016 Ashfords' Restructuring and Insolvency Team, led by partner Alan Bennett, assisted the directors in securing an Administration order in respect of Ronin Development Corporation (the "Company").

The Company was incorporated in Princeton, New Jersey, in October 1986 under the New Jersey Business Corporation Act, and is a global marketing, consulting and research company.

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to order a Latvian bank to disclose information regarding a bankrupt's dealings. The Joint Trustees of the Bankrupt's estate had demonstrated that their request was reasonable and was required to identify further assets that the Bankrupt might hold.

This decision is the latest that has been made in relation to the bankruptcy of Mr Shlosberg, a Russian businessman domiciled in London. Mr Shlosberg was made bankrupt in January 2015 on a judgment debt of US$195 million plus interest.

This article was first published in The Gazette and the full article can be found online here.

As there is no clear definition in s.335A(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 of what amounts to ‘exceptional circumstances’, the courts must apply the judgments of case law when determining whether to delay an order for possession and sale.